UNIT 7 COSER AND DAHRENDORF ON

- SOCIAL CLASSES
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 L. Coser and R. Dahrendorf
7.2.1 L. Coser
7.2.2 Function of Conflict
7.2.3 Conflicts and kjections
7.3 Class Conflict
7.4 Ralph Dahrendorf
7.4.1 Capitalisma n d h d u s ~ aSociety
l
7.4.2 Decomposition of Capital Stock
7.4.3 Decomposition of Labour
7.4.4 Social Mobility and Egalitarian Principles
7.5 Towards a Theory of Class Conflict
7.5.1 Basic Assumptions ofIntqration and Contlict 'Iheories
7.5.2 Dahrendoff s Theory
7.5.3 Dahrendorf on Social Class
7.5.4 Consequencesfor Social Structure
7.6 LetUsSumUp
7.7 Key Words
7.8 Further Readings
7.9 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

7.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit you should be able to indicate :

the functions of conflict;

dahrendorf's theory of capitalism;
the differencebetween Marx's conception of capitalism and that of Ddrendorf; and
compare Coser's theory with that of Dahrendorf's theory.

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Two opposing theoretical formulations namely Functionalism and Conflict theory have
dominated sociological theorising. These have been projected as mutually exclusive,both
in terms of domain assumptions as also in terms of their background/ideological
assumptions. Functionalism has been seen as a conservative, status-quoist theory, whereas
Conflict theory is a radical, progressive one. The debate over which of the two orientations
is the appropriate one has led to a convergence between them. The works of Coser and
Dahrendorf indicate it. It is particularly so when they examine the phenomenon of social
stratification. Both draw heavily upon Man,but tend to diverge from him. It must be
mentioned that Coser's focus was on the study of positive consequences of group conflict
and class conflict being a mere variant. On the other hand class and class conflict are the
primary focus of Dahrendorf.
 I
Coser ai~dDnhrendore
7.2 L. COSER AND R. DAHRENDORF or1 Social Classes

We now turn to specifi&lly examine each of these thinkers

7.2.1 Coser
As functionalism generally and functional theories of stratification,particularly becoming
increasingly popular, a small nuniber of scholars began to point out its shortcomings. One
of the most telling criticisms was directed against the assunlption that social systems are
organised on the basis of a broadbased consensus around a system of values. Harmonious
functioning of diverse substructures constituted the niodel.

At the empirical level however, it was quite evident that conflicts of various kind and
intensity between and within groups were continually taking place. How does one account
for this a~lomaly?Are conflicts merely an abberation, a passing case of deviance which
can be taken care of by the built-in mechanism of social control in the social system'? Or
are conflicts as much a characteristic feature of the system as consensus'? If the latter is the
case, the11what is the relation between the two'? It is this question that Coser was
concerned with. b

Inspired by Georg Simmel's pioneering work in the area of inter group relations, Coser
sees conflict playing a positive, functional role. Coser begins his argument first put forth
by Simmel that conflict performs two functions: First, it establishes the identity of groups
within the system. It strengthens group consciousness one makes them aware that they are
separate from the 'others' they are opposing. It is quite close to what Parsons calls
boundary maintenance. Secondly, 'reciprocal repulsions' a phrase used by Simmel, create
a balance between groups and thereby contribute to the functioning stability of the social
system as a whole.
.
Although the twin functions of conflict are applicable to all cases of goup conflict, these
are particularly apt for understanding conflict between stratified groups-castes and classes

7.2.2 Function of Conflict

The function of conflict in establishing and maintaining group identities is quite clear in
~ a r x ' theoly
s of class For him classes constitute themselves only through conflict with
another class. Individuals may store common objective positions with others and yet may
not be aware of the communality of interests. It is a class-in-itself. They become a class i.e.
class for itself, only when they carry out a common battle against another class.

Let us now turn to the caste system and the role of conflict within it. Let us recall the
second function mentioned above, namely 'reciprocal repulsions'. Coser believes that
conflict between castes not only establishes distinctiveness and separateness of the various
castes but also ensures the stability of the total Indian social structure

This is possible as a result of a balance of claims made by rival competing castes Members
of the same caste are drawn together in a solidarity resulting from their conmion hostility
and rejection of members of other castes. Hierarchy of positions in the system is
maintained because of the rejection by the subgroups or castes in the society of each other.

7.2.3 Conflicts and Rejections

The discussion so far has focussed on the conflicts and rejections of strata and castes of one
another imd the functional consequences following from them. To recapitulate, two such
functions have been mentioned. First conflict with other groups leads to integration and
solidaritywithin the group. Secondly, the system as a whole is maintainedby a balance of
aversions the groups have for one another.
25
Explaining Social Stratification
Activity 1

Discuss with other stydents the question of conflict. Can conflict have ;Ifunction?
Write your thoughts in your noteboolc

An important qualifications is required at this stage for the foregoing disc~~ssion.

Sometimes, out-groups instead of becoming targets of hostility and rejection. actually
become positive reference groups to the group kl question (cf. Merton). The out-group may
be emulated for purposes of becoming its member in future. Merton calls this anticipatory
socialisation. Coser, however, believes that such may not bethe case for the caste system
where caste positions are fixed for life and there is little possibility of m o \ ~ i from
~ ~ g one
caste to another. M.N. Srinivas believes, however, that aritually lower caste iilay try to
adopt the rituals and life styles of higher castes in order to improve the position of the caste
in the hierarchy of castes. This he calls the process of 'sanskritisation'.

The open class .system, has bounded strata; some movement, both upward and downward is
possible. Such mobility, in fact, is an ideal, although in practice there may not be
substantial movement. In such a situation, hostility between classes is mixed with positive
attraction to the higher classes. The sentiments of hostility towards higher classes do not
necessarily mean rejection of the values of these groups but represent a 'sour grapes'
attitude: 'that which is condemned is secretly coveted'.

7.3 CLASS CONFLICT

So far we have talked mainly about the feelings or sentiments of hostilitv towards other
strata. Such negative feelings emerge due to the unequal distribution of privileges. At this
stage it is desirable to distinguish between hostile sentiments, feelings or attitudes on one
hand and conflict on the other. Conflict is an interaction between two or no re persons or
groups. Negative feelings or hostility do not ilecessarily lead to conflict interaction.

If this be so, then we nuy ask the question as to the conditions under which llostile feelings
lead to their acting out in conflict. Coser believes that hostility between groups erupts in
case unequal distribution of rights is not considered legitimate. The underpriviged group
must first become aware that the rights and privileges to which it is entitlcd are being
denied to it.

Check Your Progress 1

1) What function does Coser see in hostility and conflict, write down your answer in
about five lines.
..............................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
2) According to Coser conflict with other groups leads to
i) integration and solidarity
ii) open hostilities
iii) disintegrkon
iv) revolution

In any system of inequality, an ideology upholding it is an invariable concoilunitant.The

negatively privileged group must reject totally any suchjustificatory ideology. Only if such
26 conscious rejection of legitimate order takes place can feelings be translated into action.
It should ~nlnlediatelyoccur to you that Coser's analysis of conflict interaction closely Coser and Dnhrendorf
~ ISocial
I Classes
resemble:, that of Max, especially the transfornlation of 'class-in-itself' to a 'class-for-
itself' Coser states that when social structures are no longer felt to be legitilllate,
individuals with similar objective positions will come, tluough conflict. and form self
conscious groups which have similar interests. (You will see later that a similar position is
taken by Dahrendorf also).

7.4 R. DAHRENDORF
One of tlie major contributioirs to a study or classes and class conflicts lias come from Ralf
Dahrendorf, a Genllan sociologist, in his seminal work 'Class and Class Conflict in
Industrial society'. This work is based on a reasoned critique of M a n ' s writings on class
What Daluendorf has done is to initially show which of fonl~ulationsare tenable
and whicl~untenable and then go on to provide a theory of class, class conflict and
structured change
I11 this section we shall briefly look at his contribution

7.4.1 Capitalism and Industrial Society

One of the first issues which Dahrendorf has taken up for analysis is the nature of
capitalisn~and the classes within it He has shown that capitalisn~inerely signifies one
form of industrial society. The two main elements of capitalisin for M a n are private
property in means of production and regulation of productive process by private contract
(or management or i~iitiative).In other words esse~ltiallya combination of private
ownership and factual control of the instrument of production.
Marx's analysis of classes and class conflicts is based on the above nlentioned
characteristics of capitalism If it can be shown that there are no inore operative, than his
theory is of little value today.

7.4.2 I)ecomposition of Capital Stock

The emer{:ence and spread on a wide scale of joint stock conlpanies raise serious questions
about owliership and control of industrial enterprises with which was concerned.
The roles of owner and nunager. originally conlbined in the position of capitalist, have
been separated-stockholder i.e owner, and executive. The owner does not have a defined
role in the authority structure of the orgallisation and those who have it do not necessarily

The legitimacy of managerial authority stems not from ownership but from the
bureaucratic organisation itself The effect of this development on class conflict includes a
change in the domposition of groups participating in conflict, a change in the issues that
cause conflict and also in the patterns of coiflict.

7.4.3 1)ecomposition of Labour

Just as there bas been a decomposition of capital, there has also been a decomposition of
labour. M ; m had believed that with the growth of capitalism the workers will become
more and tnore unsullied, impoverished and homogeneous and will thus act in unison
against a unified capitalist class. On the contrary, the workers have become more
differentiated Not only is there a sharp distinction between unskilled and semiskilled
workers there is a growing proportion of highly skilled workers. Consequently the
earnings and functions differ widely among them.
Let us also not forget the emergence of the new middle class-the white collar salaried
eillployee. Although the salaried employee occupied a middle position in terms of income
and prestige, from the point of a theory of conflict there a n be no nuddle class. Where
does it belong then in a relation of conflict? This is a1important question because the
name middle class is quite varied in its conlposition-from doctors and engineers on one
hand and a clerk, office boy on the other. In a coixflict situation which anlong them will be
'haves' and which 'have nots"? Dahrendorfbelieves that those in the bureaucratic hierarchy
belong to iuling class and the white collar worker and others to the working class.
27
Explaining Social Stratification 7.4.4 Socia] Mobility and Egalitarian Principles
Apart form the decomposition of capital and labour and the einergence of a deconlposed
ilew middle class, social mobility has also militated against the hon~ogeilisatioilof classes.
Marx had believed drat the status an individual occupies in society is deter~ninedby his
failuly origin and the positioil of his parents. In post capitalist societies tlds is not tile case.
There has been considerable social inability both intergenerational as well as in(ra-
generational. what this meals for class conlposition is that the classes \+ill be unstable.
Hence the intensity of class conflict diiiunishes. While this is likely to be the case, let us
not foget that it does not eliminate the possibility of class coiflict.

Activity 2
How is the modern world different from Marx's ideas. Tallt to peol)le and note
down your thoughts in your notehoolc

Yet another important factor that has militated against the kind of class conflict engulfing
the entire society wldch mux had visualised, is the egalitarian principle hl the political
sphere. Freedom of association has allowed the trade unions and political parties to take
up conflict resolution in other than the direction ofviolent class conflicts. Negotiated
settlements in institutionalised frame work was possible. The working class. at least in the
organised sector, has been able to secure considerable benefits.

To recapitulate tlle critique of M a n suggested by Daluendorf. The predictioils Marx had

made about honlogenisation of classes and the pauperisation or working class giving rise
to intense and violent class conflicts has not been borne out by the historical
developments, since his time. Three features are of particular inlport;ulcc First. there has
. been decomposition of both labour and capital and a new middle class llas emerged
Secondly. social mobility has made movement of individuals from one class to another
possible. It works against the stability of classes, which in turn reduces the intensity of
class conflict. Thirdly, equality in the political sphere has allowed cla'ss struggles to be
canied out within institutionalised frame works and not necessarity tl~roughclass wars.
Since ownership of property and control are seperated and the proletariat is deconlposed
we cannot visualise an entire society divided in two large warring canlps. Classes and
conflicts will renuin in poor capitalist societies but their nature will be quite different
froin what M a n had formulated.
 Coser and Dahrendorf
7.5 TOWARDS A THEORY OF CLASS CONFLICT on Social Classes

Having shown the shortcomings of the applkability of Marx's theory of class conflict to
Industrial societies, due to changed conditions Dahrendorf goes on then to suggest his own
formulations on the subject.

In the theoretical corpus of sociology, there have been two distinct orientations. First is the
Integration theory of society and second, the Coercion theory of society.

7.5.1 Basic Assumptions of Integration and Coercion Theories

The former is founded on four basic assumptions:

i) Every society is a relatively persistant, stable structure of elements.

ii) .Every society is an i l l integrated structure of elements.
iii) Every element in a society has a function, i.e. renders contribution to its maintenance
as a system.
iv) Every functioning social structure is based on a consensus of values among its
members.

The latter i.e. the Coercion theory also exhibits four levels:

i) Every society is at every point subject to processes change; social change is

ubiquitious.
ii) Every society displays at every point dissensus and conflict; social conflict is
ubiquitious.
iii) Every element in a society renders a contribution to its disintegration and change.
iv) Every society is based on the coercion of some if its members by others.

He considers both models as complementary rather than competing. For the explanation of
formation of conflict groups the second model is appropriate. Given this assumption,
Dahrendorf then goes on to provide a set of ideas in the form of propositions. Subsequent
analysis and empirical verifications will be needed.

7.5.2 Dahrendorf's Theory

Let us examine the ideas contained in his 'Theory of Social Classes and Class Conflict'.

The objective of the exercise is an examination and explanation of structure changes in

terms of group conflict. Since the primary interest is on conflict and its consequences,
following the coercion model, it is taken as present throughout social structure i.e.
ubiquitous. All the elements of the social structure e.g. roles, institutions norms have to do
something or other with instability and change. [One may legitimately ask the counter
question; How is there unity and coherence then? The answer will be: 'coercion and
I

Check Your Progress 2

1) In which way does Dahrendorf s theory differ from that of Marx. Answer using about

...........................................................
...........................................................
...........................................................
...........................................................
Explaining Social Stratification 2) Say true or false.

i) Marx advocated the decomposition of capital

ii) Dahrendorf feels that class conflict will lead to revolution
iii) Marx points out that capital leads to Imperatively Coordinated Associations
iv) Class conflict has consequences for the social structure.

Every theory, however rudimentary it may be, uses a set of concepts which have to be
clearly defined so that the statements showing the inter relationships can be clearly
understood. Dahrendorf is one of the rare authors who has deliberately chosen to practice
what the methodologists often preach but seldom practice.

Since it is a theory dealing with conflict concepts like power, authority have to find a
place.

Following, Max Weber, Authority (i.e. legitimate power) then is the probability that an
order with specific content will be obeyed by a given group of persons. Let it be
emphasized that authority is confined to a specific organisation or group. The manager of
factory 'A' cannot have aut'lority over workers of factory 'B'. It is confined to his factory
only.

Box 7.01

Those who have authority dominate others. Domination is possession of authority.

Corollarily, exclusion from authority is subjection. Combining the etements of
authority, domination and objection, the domain of enquiry, the imperatively
coordinated association is defined. Any association in which live members are
subject to authority relations will be called an Imperatively Coordinated
Association, (I.C.A. will be used subsequently). It will show asymmetry of relations
in terms of domination and subjection.

Following Marx's ideas on the existential basis of consciousness, class conscious~essand

fake class consciousness (cf "class-in-itself' and "class-for-itself') Dahrendorf
distinguishes between latent and manifest interest.

Latent interests are those interests about which the incumbents of the two espousing ,

positions of domination and subjection are unaware. In contrast the manifest interests are
articulate and conscious to the individual and lead to opposition to the other.
Corresponding to the two kind of interests, collectivities can be classified. The collectivity
of individuals having common latent interests is called a quasi group, on the other hand.
that which shares manifest interests is called interest groups.

Quasi group-b Interest group

Latent interests-Manifest interests .

(note that if latent interests become manifest due to structural dynamics of opposition,
quasi groups become interest groups)

Having defined these terms Dahrendorf is now ready to define social class. (Remember
that ownership will not figure in it as in Marx)

7.5.3 Dahrendorf on Social Class

Social classes then are such organised or unorganised collectivities which share latent or
manifest interests which arise from the authority structure of imperatively coordinated
associations (I.C.A.)
 A few important points to note are: C ~ ~ s ie~rn dDahrendorf
on Social Classes
i) Social class does not enconlpass all or even most nlenlbers of a society as a whole. It
has relevance only for the given ICA.
ii) Given the authority structure of an ICA of domination and subjection, only two
classes are emergent.
iii) Social classes are always conflict groups.

Group conflict is the antagonistic relationship between organised collectivitiesas is based

on patterns of social structure. (Not randonh not based on psychological factors). In a given
I.C.A. class conflict which arised fromthe authority structure is endenuc and ubiquitous.
The presence and acting out of class conflict has consequencesfor structural change. This
change can be in the social institutions and/or nomx and values. Change can take place in
varying degrees of suddenness or radicalness or both. (Note the departure from Marx
fornlulation that structural change is always revolutionary i.e. sudden, radical and violent).

A model of conflict group fonnation. 'In very imperatively coordinated association, two
quasi groups united by common latent interests can be distinguished. Their orientations of
interest are determined by possession of or exclusion from authority. From these quasi
groups, interest groups are recmited, the articulate programs of which defined or attack
the legitimacy of exciting authority structures. In any given association, two such
groupings are in conflict'. (Dahrei~dorf,1959: 183-84)

7.5.4 Consequences for Social Structure

Once conflict groups of the class type are formed in an I.C.A. i.e. in twp opposing groups,
how does the conflict interaction proceed? What will be the consequences for the social
structure in which group conflict is rooted? There are the questions that any theory of
conflict has to answer. Daluendorf has attempted to do so.

To begin with one asks the question regarding the intensity of conflict (which involves
i
I 'costs' in case of defeat which factors affect it positively and negatively. Dahrendorf
believes that the intensity of class conflict decreases to the extent that conditions for class
organisation are present and vice versa. For example, if the workers havt, opportunities of
forming unions and negotiate with nlanagement, the worker nmagement conflicts will be
I- less intense. Sinularly in states where people can freely form parties and civic association
will have less intense conflict, similarly, intensity of group conflict will diminich when the
classes hi different associations are not superimposed. For example the factory workers are
1 also not from an ethnic minority or low caste. If there is superimposition of the two, the
I conflict will be more intense.
,
I The intensity of class conflict is also affected by the fact of whether or not different group
1 conflicts in the same society are dissociated. As an example let us suppose that there are
three major kind of conflicts in a society: class conflict, ethnic conflict and regional, say,
I north-south conflict. If the incumbants of position of domination are also from dominant
etlmic group and from the north, and those of subjection from a particular subordiate

Box 7.02

It is to be noted that if the distributionof rewards and of authority are dissociated,

then also the intensity of class conflict will diminish. Although the exercise of
authority and ownership of property tend to coincide, it need not necessarily be
so. Those in authority mily not own the means of production yet the workers may
own shares in the company which employs them. Social mobility does influence
the intensity of class conflict. It tends to decrease to the extent the classes are
open and not closed. In a caste society where avenues of upward mobility are
permanently closed, the intensity of conflict is likely to be higher than in an open
class society. The caste conflicts in Bihar are a good example.
Explaining Social Stratification Having discussed the factors that affect the intensity of class conflict, Dahrendorf, then
moves on to examine the variables affecting the violence of conflict. We have seen earlier,
that he rejects Marx's position that all class conflicts are violent. It also does not mean
that it is absent. What is believd is that the degree of violence varies from peaceful to
bloody revolutionary conflict.
The conditions of class organisation prevelant in an ICA is negatively related to the
violence of class conflict (cf unionisation and peaceful collective bargaining in a factory).
Dahrendorf also believes that if relative deprivation replaces absolute deprivation in the
subject classes, theviolence of class conflict is reduced. Yet another factor affecting the
degree of violence is the regulation of conflict, By regulation of conflict is meant the
mechanisms and procedures that deal with the expression of conflict and not either with its
resolution or suppression. To begin with, both parties must recognise that the conflict is
real and necessary. Callingthe other party's claim as 'unrealistic' is not regulation. It must
be recognised that the 'other' has a case. Conflict regulation is more likely to occur when
the opposing groups are organised as interest groups. In case of unorganised groups
regulation is difficult. For example if there is only one workers' union in a factory, both the
management and workers can work out effective strategies for dealing with the issues
involved in conflict.
Finally, if both the parties agree on certain formal 'iules of the game', conflict is better
regulated. As in most democratic countries of the would India has evolved procedures for
industrial conflict regulation e.g. negotiations, mediations, arbitration and adjudication;
strike being the last resort.
As class conflict takes place in an association, given its varying intensity and violence, it
has consequences for the structure. Two kind of structure changes have been identified by
Dahrendorf. suddeness and radicalness. The term structure change is to be applied when
there are changes in the personnel of positions of domination and sub.jectio11in 1.C.A.s.
An extreme case will be when all the positions of authority are takes over by nlenlbers of
the erstwhile subject class, such as for example, in a revolution. More oftell tlxm not,
however, there is partial replacement.
By radicalness of structure change is meant the significance of consequences and
ramifications of such change. It should be noted that many sudden changes nlay not
necessarily be radical. For example a coup de tat by one general against another will bring
about considerable changes in personnel, but will heavily change either the institutional or
the nonnative order prevalent in the state.

7.6 LET US SUM UP

The 'Grand Theory' of Marx with its global vision and revolutionary zeal 1x1s had strong
emotional reactions both positive and negative. It has changed the course of human
history. Over the years however there has been a quiet dispassionate esa~lunatiollof his
writings.
M m ' s vision of total social tpnsformation of the inequitous, inhumat1 capitalist system
by a revolutionary well organised working class hasn't really worked out. The concepts of
class and class conflict that he had used have had tremendous impact, 11social sciences.
Many scholars adopted them in their entirety; some with modification.

Both Coser and Dahrendorfbelong to the later category. Both of them see the sigruf~cance
of class, but not its nature. The entire society may not be divided in two warring classes.
They are 'groups' in a society having interests which are opposed to those of other groups.
Conflict is not merely positional, it is interactive; not only structural but also processual. It
also has a psychological counterpast in interest, consciousness, and in emotional costs.
Finally, it has consequences for the social structure. These may beboth positive and
 Coser nnd Dahrendoti
7.7 KEY WORDS on Socis11Classes
Capitalism : The system in which there are owners of the means of produc-
tion and the workers. This leads to an exploitation of the latter
by the former.

Conflict : The opposing stance and action of two or more antogonists

groups

Egalitarian : The principle that each individual/group must have equal status
and opportunity.

Decoml)osition : The breaking down of a class or group into smaller groups, e.g.
that of labour and capital based groups.

Function : The part a component plays in the integration of a whole e.g.

the part economy plays in integrating society. -
7.8 FURTHER READINGS
Coser, A. 1956. Function of Social Conflict. London. Routeledge and Kegan Paul.

Dahrendorf, R. 1959. Class and Class Conjlict in Industrial Society. London. Routeledge
and Kegan Paul.

7.9 SPECIMEN ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1

1) Conflict has several functions. Firstly conflict with other groups leads to integration
and solidarity within the same group. Furtherthe whole system is maintained by what
may be termed as a balance of aversions the groups have for the another. However
sometimes what happei~sis that an out group@)instead of creating a hostile response
actually becomes apositive reference group. This is called anticipatory socialization,
and has been stressed even in the caste system through the process termed
' Sanskritization'.

Check Your Progress 2

1) The theory of Marx predicts revolutionary change due to p~l~ariuization of classes in the
system of capitalism. Dahrendorfpoints out due to deconlposition of labour and
capital, and due to social mobility such a revolution and polarization of classes will
no1 occur. Thus industrial society defuses the tensioils through the various piocesses
mentioned above.

2) i) False
ii) False
iii) False
iv) True.